A national web survey conducted this week by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner on behalf of Democracy Corps, shows that Independent voters do not trust House Speaker John Boehner and the Congressional Republicans on the debt ceiling and budget deficit debate. These swing voters are tuned in and paying close attention to the debt ceiling debate in Washington and are very concerned about what could happen to the economy should Congress not act.
Most problematic for Speaker Boehner and Republicans is these voters represent a critical bloc that propelled them into the majority last November, but have now turned away from the Republicans. Independent voters supported Republicans nationally by a double digit margin last November, but that support has fallen off during the debt ceiling debate. Independents are extremely negative toward Boehner and just 30 percent favor Boehner and the Republican’s approach on the debt ceiling debate. Boehner’s personal standing is abysmally low with this bloc, including among self-described conservatives.
Equally important, President Obama has a sizeable advantage over Boehner and the Republicans among Independents on who is more concerned with the interests of the middle class, and Boehner is viewed as looking out more for millionaires and billionaires by a huge margin. Independents simply don’t see Boehner as an advocate for the middle class.
President Obama and Democrats have a real advantage as Boehner and Republicans lack credibility among these swing voters as the debt ceiling debate continues.

Read thither and yon, google all day, and you’re still not going to find a better take-down of the MSM’s proclivity for false equivalency — and the damage it is doing in the current debt ceiling negotiations than Paul Krugman’s “The Centrist Cop-Out” in today’s New York Times. Some excerpts:

The facts of the crisis over the debt ceiling aren’t complicated. Republicans have, in effect, taken America hostage, threatening to undermine the economy and disrupt the essential business of government unless they get policy concessions they would never have been able to enact through legislation. And Democrats — who would have been justified in rejecting this extortion altogether — have, in fact, gone a long way toward meeting those Republican demands.
…Many people in the news media apparently can’t bring themselves to acknowledge this simple reality. News reports portray the parties as equally intransigent; pundits fantasize about some kind of “centrist” uprising, as if the problem was too much partisanship on both sides.
Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.” But would that cult still rule in a situation as stark as the one we now face, in which one party is clearly engaged in blackmail and the other is dickering over the size of the ransom?
The answer, it turns out, is yes. And this is no laughing matter: The cult of balance has played an important role in bringing us to the edge of disaster. For when reporting on political disputes always implies that both sides are to blame, there is no penalty for extremism. Voters won’t punish you for outrageous behavior if all they ever hear is that both sides are at fault.

Krugman goes on to explain how President Obama bent way over backwards to negotiate with Republicans, inmcluding “a “Grand Bargain” with Republicans over taxes and spending…extraordinary concessions on Democratic priorities…an increase in the age of Medicare eligibility, sharp spending cuts and only small revenue increases.” The President’s concessions were not merely centrist, but “a bit to the right of the average Republican voter’s preferences.” Krugman continues:

But Republicans rejected the deal. So what was the headline on an Associated Press analysis of that breakdown in negotiations? “Obama, Republicans Trapped by Inflexible Rhetoric.” A Democratic president who bends over backward to accommodate the other side — or, if you prefer, who leans so far to the right that he’s in danger of falling over — is treated as being just the same as his utterly intransigent opponents. Balance!
…Many pundits view taking a position in the middle of the political spectrum as a virtue in itself. I don’t. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily reside in the middle of the road, and I want leaders who do the right thing, not the centrist thing.
But for those who insist that the center is always the place to be, I have an important piece of information: We already have a centrist president…

Krugman cites President Obama’s HCR and tax policies as examples and adds:

So what’s with the buzz about a centrist uprising? As I see it, it’s coming from people who recognize the dysfunctional nature of modern American politics, but refuse, for whatever reason, to acknowledge the one-sided role of Republican extremists in making our system dysfunctional. And it’s not hard to guess at their motivation. After all, pointing out the obvious truth gets you labeled as a shrill partisan, not just from the right, but from the ranks of self-proclaimed centrists.
But making nebulous calls for centrism, like writing news reports that always place equal blame on both parties, is a big cop-out — a cop-out that only encourages more bad behavior. The problem with American politics right now is Republican extremism, and if you’re not willing to say that, you’re helping make that problem worse.

In fairness, there have been MSM reporters and editorials that have not been hustled by “the centrist cop-out” and they merit respect for doing an honest job. But Krugman is right that too many others have swilled the pseudo-centrist Koolaid, and now are very much a part of the problem.

J.P. Green’s post below covered a range voter suppression activities. But now we have a new, particularly disgusting initiative from Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker, reports Mike Hall in the AFL-CIO Now Blog:

In May, Gov. Scott Walker (R) signed a Voter ID bill that could disenfranchise tens of thousands of students, seniors, poor and minority Wisconsin voters who don’t have drivers’ licenses or state-issued photo IDs.
Now it appears as if the Walker administration is going a step further to keep voters who aren’t likely to be Walker supporters (see list below) away from the polls. He’s closing 10 Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices where residents can obtain the photo IDs they will need before they are allowed to vote. Supposedly, the move is to free up DMV employees to staff offices that will have expanded hours to provide ID services.
But state Rep. Andy Jorgensen (D) says it appears the decisions were based on politics, with the department targeting offices for closure in Democratic areas and expanding hours for those in Republican districts.

As for the old ‘voter fraud’ excuse being peddled by GOP politicians coast to coast, Hall notes that there were more UFO sightings (40) in Wisconsin in 2008 than reports of improper voting (14) — out of 3 million votes cast in that election.
The i.d. law itself is draconian, but the required procedures compound the injustice:

While Walkerites claim that all a person needs to do is head to the nearest DMV and get his or her “free” voter ID, as recent hidden camera video shows, if you don’t specifically ask for a “Voter ID,” you’ll be charged $28, the cost of a regular state photo ID. There are no signs and the clerks are not instructed to ask what type of photo ID a person is after. In effect, that’s a $28 poll tax.

The Wisconsin i.d. law kicks in next year. But Hall points out that “voters will be asked to provide a photo ID but will be allowed to vote without one” in the upcoming recall elections.

The false equivalency commentators of the MSM are juxtaposing the speeches of President Obama and Speaker Boehner last night in predictable “on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand” reports. But WaPo columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr. has a more perceptive take, for those who prefer to take it straight:

President Obama made clear tonight that the debate over the debt ceiling is not left vs. right. It’s center vs. right. There was nothing remotely “left” in this speech, unless you count higher taxes for corporate jet owners and a few other populist bits.
He summarized his approach this way: “Let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was president. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare — and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.”

Dionne adds that the exchange is likely to clarify the GOP brand for those viewers who were still unclear: “…Republicans have defined their party as being committed to low taxes for the wealthy above everything else. If anything good can come out of this strange episode, it is that no one will ever be able to doubt that proposition in the future.”
Dionne also credits President Obama with doing a good job of explaining the reasons for the economic crisis and nailing the GOP for their double standard: “It was a direct hit at Republicans who seemed not to worry about deficits until Obama took office — and now blame him for much of the red ink they themselves spilled.”
But “The most persuasive argument in Obama’s speech,” according to Dionne, had to do with calling the Republicans out on their plans for holding the economy hostage in the future:

Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach…And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.”

But Dionne believes the Republicans may be putting themselves into an indefensible position with just one way out:

Obama’s speech spoke more to middle-of-the-road Americans than Boehner’s did because Obama was clearly talking to them. Boehner has to prove over and over that he’s faithful to the folks at the right end of his caucus, and it’s starting to take a toll. That’s why Republicans may yet find themselves wanting to get the debt-ceiling matter out of the way without forcing another round of this madness.

Dionne acknowledges that “this whole mess is not making any politician in Washington look good.” In a struggle between a flexible centrist and a faction of increasingly rigid ideologues, however, any advantage is more likely to benefit the former.

More and more, it appears that Republicans are experiencing a severe bout of overconfidence regarding their intransigence in the debt ceiling negotiations, as TDS Co-editor Ruy Teixeira explains in his current ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’:

Here’s one of the reasons why: 53 percent of respondents in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll said that President Barack Obama cares more about the economic interests of the middle class, while just 35 percent thought that was true of the Republicans in Congress. In contrast, 67 percent thought Republicans in Congress cared more about the interests of large business corporations, compared to 24 percent who thought that of President Obama.

Teixeira adds, “…Conservative intransigence is starting to seem less a matter of principle than an expression of whose side they’re on.” In terms of what should be done, the public has little sympathy for the GOP position:

Reflecting these attitudes, the public believes Republicans should compromise on raising taxes in a debt ceiling deal. Sixty-two percent think they should give in and accept tax rises on the rich, while only 27 percent think they shouldn’t give in. But the public doesn’t believe Democrats should give in on cutting Social Security and Medicare, programs that are hugely important to middle-class economic security. By 52-38 the public believes Democrats should not agree to such cuts even if it’s the “only way” to get a debt ceiling deal.

The Republicans seem to think playing chicken in the debt ceiling negotiations is helping their image. But the latest opinion data indicates that their strategy is starting to look more like a very big turkey.

In his New Republic article, “How Tax Reform Represents Obama’s Greatest Shot at Hope and Change,” Mark Schmitt challenges Dems to seize the initiative “to move the whole country in the direction of greater fairness, growth, and financial stability.”

…Nothing about tax reform is going to be any easier than the debt-limit deal itself. Still, if a budget deal commits Congress to do something, the goal of tax reform can be much more than just moving the long-term revenue line a little closer to the spending line. Because the tax code sets some of the basic parameters of our economic structure, it can also be an opportunity to move the whole country in the direction of greater fairness, growth, and financial stability.
…While far from the only cause of structural inequality, the tax code is a big part of it, and tax reform can change it. The first step is to end the special treatment of capital gains and dividend income–not just because the wealthy get more of their income in that form, but because of the incentives it has created to increase inequality and risk. That’s a reform that would both clean up the code and give us more of what we want more of.
But imagine a tax code that tried to undo its own damage. When so much inequality is created within single companies, why not reward companies that are narrowing the gap and tax companies that widen it? The average CEO now takes home 350 times the pay of the average worker, a difference that’s more than tripled since 1990, and is unknown in any other country. Leo Hindery, a former telecommunications executive, has proposed a tax penalty for companies where executive compensation exceeds a certain level; another proposal, put forward by investor Steve Silberstein, would adjust the corporate tax rate based on the ratio of CEO pay to the average worker. A company with a ratio at the 1980 level of 50:1 would pay tax at the current rate of 35 percent, with the rate rising for companies with a higher ratio and lower for those with a narrower pay gap.

Schmitt argues that merely allowing the Bush tax cuts expire for those earning more than $250K would not raise enough revenue to “make a dent in the conditions of those in the bottom 60 percent who have gained almost nothing over the last 30 years.” He likens it to “dipping into great fortunes with a teaspoon, and sprinkling it over the rest of the country” and, besides, the revenue raised this way in the President’s proposal is “earmarked for deficit reduction.”
He also cites the tax code incentives for spiking executive pay upward as a major systemic injustice that must be corrected in any plan for meaningful reform, and adds that an historic transformation toward greater fairness is now a real possibility. “Taxation provides the basic structure of incentives in our economy, and the Bush and Reagan tax changes got them wrong,” explains Schmitt. “If the budget deal does lead to tax reform, it’s a welcome opportunity to get them right this time. ”

Attention Democratic campaign workers: Keith Pickering has a don’t-miss post up at Daily Kos “WOW! Simple wording change dramatically increases voter turnout.” It’s all about how pre-election surveys can make a significant difference in GOTV. Pickering quotes from a PHYSorg.com article by Bob Yirka about a new study conducted by Stanford University social psychologist Christopher Bryan and his colleagues, Gregory M. Walton, Todd Rogers, and Carol S. Dweck:

Bryan and his team first sent out surveys to just 38 people prior to the 2008 presidential election. Half the group got a survey asking if it was important to vote, the other half got surveys asking if it was important to be a voter. 87.5 [percent] responded yes to the second question while only 55.6 [percent] did so with the first.
Feeling he was on to something, Bryan then set his sights higher, for his next experiment, he and his team sent surveys to 133 registered voters in California one day before the 2008 election. Afterwards, using voting records, he was able to ascertain that 82% of those who got the “vote” question actually voted, while 96% of the “voter” group did [actually vote].

Bryan and his colleagues noted very similar results in a New Jersey test, which found a 90 percent turnout for the ‘voter’ group vs. 79 percent for the ‘vote’ group, “the largest ever measured effect on voter turnout.”
The authors attribute the increased turnout to leveraging the power of ‘personal identity’ as a motivating force vs. asking about behavior in the abstract — an “are you a good citizen?” subtext.
Pickering provides a handy never-say-this/always-say-this-instead chart for pre-election GOTV surveys, which campaign workers should study (e.g.: Say “Are you going to be a voter on Tuesday?” instead of “Are you going to vote on Tuesday?”)
It could make a difference in close elections. As Pickering concludes, “A 10% to 15% increase in turnout for a tiny word change? Miracles don’t come any cheaper. ”